So yesterday, when it was revealed that BAE systems definitely wouldn’t be building the five cheaper Type 31 frigates – which had replaced the originally-promised Type 26s – in Scotland, in a move which the shipbuilding unions described as a “betrayal”, we sat back and waited for the Scottish media’s outraged blanket coverage.
Quite a few remarkable things were said on last night’s STV debate between the two prospective leaders of the Labour Party branch office in Scotland. This one, though, was especially striking.
That’s Anas Sarwar denying three times that he was a part of the “Better Together” campaign with the Tories. A startled Colin Mackay claims to have seen photographs of Sarwar campaigning with BT, at which point Sarwar insists no, he merely appeared on TV debates which happened to also have Tory guests.
Readers will doubtless be startled to hear that today’s Scottish newspapers have taken a somewhat misleading approach to the facts on one of the day’s big stories.
Several of them report the findings of a commission looking into the idea of a Citizen’s (or Universal) Basic Income, a scheme which pays every adult in the country a fixed sum every year regardless of their own income, almost completely replacing the current benefits system.
The idea is that as well as reducing poverty, the administrative costs of social security are massively reduced, as is the problem of vulnerable people not taking up benefits because of the stigma often attached to them by the press.
The downside is that it’s generally more expensive. But have the Scottish press accurately reported the scale of that cost, or have they massively exaggerated it for shock value and to serve a right-wing agenda? Read on for a surprise!
Investigative site The Ferret this afternoon published a report into the Scottish Futures Trust, the SNP’s replacement for Labour’s cripplingly costly PFI projects.
The report was undertaken by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, a pair of economists well regarded in nationalist circles, and makes some interesting if vague comments about downsides that MIGHT, in theory, exist in the SFT now or in the future.
The headline claims are all full of highly-qualified language (“may not deliver value for money”; “profits may be unduly high”; “could restrict growth”; “potentially has adverse implications”; “impossible to tell whether“), and it’s a long way down the page until you get to anything approaching a hard fact, or indeed the revelation that the report seems to have been paid for by Scottish Labour.
We long ago gave up expecting any sort of principled consistency from the Scottish Tories. Whether it was Ruth “line in the sand, no more powers” Davidson magically morphing into a champion of extended devolution, or suddenly reversing her position on free prescriptions, the party is now almost as fluid on policy as Scottish Labour.
The underlings, of course, dutifully follow their leader’s example. Readers familiar with Adam Tomkins’ remarkably rapid journey from fiery pro-independence republican to an ultra-Unionist ultra-Conservative monarchist will, we suspect, barely have batted an eyelid this morning as he unblinkingly performed a full 180-degree turn on the concept of universal basic income.
The first version is entirely accurate. Readers can decide for themselves why someone at the BBC felt it needed to be changed from neutral terms to pejorative ones.
The above story is feeble enough as it stands, even allowing for it being a desperately slow news week for Scottish politics. Maureen Watt is 66 years old and has asthma, and making a pensioner with breathing difficulties sprint a mile to get to a speech on time probably isn’t the most cost-effective way for the Parliament to save four and a half quid, once you’ve factored in the cost of the ambulance and everything.
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Cesaire wrote about “goitrous academics”. I don’t think he was being complimentary, although I do recommend that anybody interested should…” Oct 2, 13:57
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I’m not going anywhere, Fatty. Enjoy.” Oct 2, 13:34
James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Unionist shill; **** off. There’s a good chap.” Oct 2, 13:03
Connor on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Why no paypal option ? Sorry I do not feel safe having to give my card details to all, paypal…” Oct 2, 11:39
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I respect anyone who gets up for work every morning, goes to work, pays their own way, pays their taxes…” Oct 2, 11:28
crisiscult on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Middle class, working class, etc have become a bit meaningless in how they are used today, the terms often being…” Oct 2, 11:09
Southernbystander on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Once you become a professor in this country you become middle class whether you were before or not. Alf suggests…” Oct 2, 10:30
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yep, I reckon Messrs. Fanon and Césaire were early pioneers of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.” Oct 2, 10:18
Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Alf doesn’t have any of his own opinions, he just uses the quotes of others. That Masters or PhD must’ve…” Oct 2, 09:45
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The police would have to pay attention to the findings of the court in considering what fresh evidence there might…” Oct 2, 09:42
Cynicus on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I doubt if Mr Murrell is a trustee of the fund.” Oct 2, 09:32
Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “So have you donated or not, Alf? Or are you rudely derailing ANOTHER thread with your garbage?” Oct 2, 09:18
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““Not every day I get to pish 600 thousand up the wall”” Oct 2, 08:59
100%Yes on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The fighting pot mounting up quite nicely. The SNP needs stopping and removing how anyone can talk about working for…” Oct 2, 08:44
Vestas on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Done. Put a few quid extra in as I have a horrible feeling I still owe you from the Kezia…” Oct 2, 08:19
Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Just to add one point of clarification: when a decision is sent back for lawful reconsideration, the court doesn’t direct…” Oct 2, 08:09
Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yes, the court can say the original process was unlawful and require it to be done again properly — which…” Oct 2, 07:56
Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Which group, oppressor or oppressed, does Fanon put Professors into?” Oct 2, 07:55
Minceheid on In The Eyes Of The Law: “That reminds me – who was that SNP guy that got busted for hiding a camera in the bogs or…” Oct 2, 07:18
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “You are wrong on this as well. The Court can find the decision unlawful and order a reconsideration. It can…” Oct 2, 07:11
sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““check procedure and not much else.” A judicial review of Police Scotland’s decisions might be brought on grounds that the…” Oct 2, 07:06
John McNab on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““This changing room’s lying empty.”” Oct 2, 06:38
Elmac on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Contribution made and more if required. We need justice to hold these lying corrupt sleazebags to account. If the prosecution…” Oct 1, 23:31
MarkerPost on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated. Hope the fund is ring-fenced…” Oct 1, 23:17
James on Whatever Can Have Happened?: ““….they smelt of pubs…. and Wormwood scrubs…. …and too many right wing meetings….” What a shower of unionist twats….” Oct 1, 22:24